Nadal is a bad loser as he demonstrated in a French Open when Soderling beat him, as well as with his defeat at Wimbledon last year. Perhaps one can excuse his lack of self control as he has'nt had much practice in this art Murray,on the other hand has suffered many defeats and has learnt to accept them gracefully at least outwardly I know which player I prefer

Murray's hardly any more graceful in defeat. He's usually quite sullen when shaking hands (the exception being matches with players he is friends with) and respectful in his press conferences - same as Nadal.

Murray's hardly any more graceful in defeat. He's usually quite sullen when shaking hands (the exception being matches with players he is friends with) and respectful in his press conferences - same as Nadal.

Murray's hardly any more graceful in defeat. He's usually quite sullen when shaking hands (the exception being matches with players he is friends with) and respectful in his press conferences - same as Nadal.

I don't condone his behaviour, but at least Andy has never made any secret of the fact that he absolutely HATES losing, He even says in his autobiography that, when he was a child, members of his family used to let him win things like card and board games because he used to go into such a strop when he lost.

Whilst I can understand it to some extent, because it is the easy way out, I'm afraid that they have to take some of the responsibility for the way he behaves as an adult - and he certainly wouldn't have got away with it in my family! I'm not saying he should have got a good smacking, because I don't believe that ultimately that's the answer, but, with a little patience, there are other ways of getting it across to children that they can't always be the winner.

And now I've probably upset the PC brigade who think it's psychologically damaging for children to be losers ...

I'm about to get all controversial. I don't think Andy is a bad loser. He hates losing, we all know that, but I don't think he loses badly. Sure, the odd handshake might be a bit cool, but then who wants to be all matey with someone who has just beaten them? I mean, take the AO final for example. I think it was right that the handshake between Andy and Novak was fairly cool, or at least not overflowing with warmth. Hopefully it will fire Andy up and make him ready for the next time.

The thing I get the feeling Andy hates is being beaten when he shouldn't be, or when he is beaten by simply not being able to play his best. That strikes me as par for the course for a perfectionist.

To me a bad loser is someone who gets stroppy when they are losing and starts shouting their mouth off. Andy might get frustrated with himself, but to my mind that isn't the same thing.

I'm about to get all controversial. I don't think Andy is a bad loser. He hates losing, we all know that, but I don't think he loses badly. Sure, the odd handshake might be a bit cool, but then who wants to be all matey with someone who has just beaten them? I mean, take the AO final for example. I think it was right that the handshake between Andy and Novak was fairly cool, or at least not overflowing with warmth. Hopefully it will fire Andy up and make him ready for the next time.

The thing I get the feeling Andy hates is being beaten when he shouldn't be, or when he is beaten by simply not being able to play his best. That strikes me as par for the course for a perfectionist.

To me a bad loser is someone who gets stroppy when they are losing and starts shouting their mouth off. Andy might get frustrated with himself, but to my mind that isn't the same thing.

I wasn't suggesting Andy rush up and hug his conqueror, LOL, and I do agree that perfectionism can be difficult because I've got a streak of that in myself when it comes to certain matters, but at 25 going on 26 I think it's time he learnt to at least try to put a good face on things and sit on his own feelings a little more, although when it comes to certain players - no names mentioned to protect the guilty! - I can't say I blame him for being frosty. I couldn't care less if he goes into the locker-room and throws a hissy-fit because I bet he isn't the only player who does that, and it's quite natural anyway, but I would prefer to see a little more graciousness at the net both towards his opponent and the umpire.

I don't condone his behaviour, but at least Andy has never made any secret of the fact that he absolutely HATES losing, He even says in his autobiography that, when he was a child, members of his family used to let him win things like card and board games because he used to go into such a strop when he lost.

Whilst I can understand it to some extent, because it is the easy way out, I'm afraid that they have to take some of the responsibility for the way he behaves as an adult - and he certainly wouldn't have got away with it in my family! I'm not saying he should have got a good smacking, because I don't believe that ultimately that's the answer, but, with a little patience, there are other ways of getting it across to children that they can't always be the winner.

And now I've probably upset the PC brigade who think it's psychologically damaging for children to be losers ...

At the same time it is that drive to win which is what makes him the athlete he is.

Losing is healthy though, as it increases our appetite to win.. so the expression goes (paraphrasing somewhat).

I'm about to get all controversial. I don't think Andy is a bad loser. He hates losing, we all know that, but I don't think he loses badly. Sure, the odd handshake might be a bit cool, but then who wants to be all matey with someone who has just beaten them? I mean, take the AO final for example. I think it was right that the handshake between Andy and Novak was fairly cool, or at least not overflowing with warmth. Hopefully it will fire Andy up and make him ready for the next time.

The thing I get the feeling Andy hates is being beaten when he shouldn't be, or when he is beaten by simply not being able to play his best. That strikes me as par for the course for a perfectionist.

To me a bad loser is someone who gets stroppy when they are losing and starts shouting their mouth off. Andy might get frustrated with himself, but to my mind that isn't the same thing.

Oh no - I wouldn't call him a bad loser. I just don't think Nadal is either.

I have always thought that there is not sufficient time lapse between the end of matches and the participants being interviewed. Frankly I'm surprised that so many people think Andy is a bad loser. Certainly he shows his disappointment but he does'nt push past the victor like Nadal has and indeed Federer. The players need a little more time to compose themselves

I have always thought that there is not sufficient time lapse between the end of matches and the participants being interviewed. Frankly I'm surprised that so many people think Andy is a bad loser. Certainly he shows his disappointment but he does'nt push past the victor like Nadal has and indeed Federer. The players need a little more time to compose themselves

I think this is a valid point. To be honest I often think it is miraculous that players don't say the 'wrong' thing more in interviews. I mean, an extreme example is what happened with David Nalbandian at Queen's last year. Now, I'm not condoning what he did even for a second. He lost the plot entirely and paid for it. However, I do think the BBC made it worse in trying to get an interview out of him within minutes of being defaulted. I can understand that what they were trying to do was give Nalbandian a chance to apologise for what he did, but in my view they should have let things calm down a bit first. Interviewing him immediately after the incident was bound to cause issues. He was clearly still livid when they were trying to speak to him.

I've already made my point about Andy, so I won't reinvent the wheel, but I have to say that in general I don't think Nadal is too bad in defeat. I was disappointed with the way he shoved passed Rosol during the match, I thought it was uncalled for in a player of Rafa's stature. However, after the match, in his interview, he was gracious, making no excuse for the loss, and he was complimentary about the way Rosol played, which I think is all you can ask for.

Re: clay and Andy's movement - Andy's movement is not as natural on clay but he can definitely slide. He just doesn't slide as much. I don't remember Agassi sliding as much at all as he'd always control the rally from the mid-court, but of course he was no clay GOAT. However, he got the job done and won RG in 1999. I am not expecting Andy to make a huge difference on clay, but I won't be surprised at all if I find him winning RG at career end and a few titles on clay.

Sampras won 3 clay titles including Rome and made 1 RG semi. Andy can definitely surpass that. Sampras could beat anyone on clay on any given day but to do it in succession was the hardest thing for him. The main problem with clay is that, it's the slowest surface of all and so the Serves become much less effective which does not allow as many free points and same can be said about the return. So that kind of becomes a bit problematic for Andy as he's mostly left with rallies then. But Andy is rallying with conviction these days so we might see something different this time. Fingers crossed.